Actually…your handle is. So how can you even say [quote=“sexycyborg, post:73, topic:100802”]
Not everything is about sex
[/quote]?
I’m trying to understand that, not attacking you.
And it’s about treating someone - no matter what gender - as being an object, not a person, as being useful for sexual pleasure, be that the actual act or just fantasizing about it with that person.
I’m still trying to get over your handle as I relate it to your comment, forgive me…
And that’s what frustrates me about the whole thing.
For me, the intersection is at Film & Media Studies, Cinema, Film Production, and Painting.
I’m wanting to develop a concept for a series of paintings that can pick at that particular problem, to give “the actress” more agency and background, and open up “the actor” to more objective (and sexual) scrutiny. I have a friend who works as a film and video editor who I’ve been spitballing ideas at. Her feedback has been positive so far, so I feel good about possibly being on the right track.
I’m going to be thinking about this all day.
See, I think they can, but only those of an oppressed group can do it.
Not the “oppressors”. So, straight white men, cannot objectify themselves.
But women can when they feed into the entity that is the male-gaze-patriarchy.
Extreme example: strippers. They are quite literally, objectifying their own bodies for remuneration.
Humans, we are such funny creatures!
@knoxblox - that sounds interesting… it would be neat to see the effort women put into their appearance treated with something other than a slapstick “getting ready” montage.
Is the simplest answer to the original question - depends?
Does context of said objectification matter, or is it a zero-tolerance topic?
If my spouse is wearing something incredibly sexy with the express intent to arouse me and initiate a sexual encounter and my response is “you are so sexy, i want you” that to me is by definition objectification, but it is certainly not in a negative context objectification.
Additionally, if I see a woman wearing something that accentuates her physical form and she looks attractive in it, and I think “She looks gorgeous and sexy” am I objectifying her? or is it merely appreciation and acknowledgement of her physical beauty?
I am not built like a Marvel Superhero…and if I were, I admit I wouldn’t care if someone objectified me from afar and unbeknownst to me. Would it be right…no, but in my own mind there is an element of out of sight out of mind going on.
I’m trying to experiment with all the typical film genres - Action, Romance, Horror/Thriller, etc.
I’m not wanting to just “flip the script” (ugh - I hate that term as much as “outside the box”), but try to inject some awareness into the context. I think it will be fun.
Ah, no, no it isn’t. Choosing to make oneself look more attractive is not objectification. The answer’s in the word: one is transformed into a thing by objectification. It’s especially difficult with someone the viewer supposedly knows well, like a spouse.
That’s why I love that comment James Gunn made, the one I quoted upthread. He noted that with men the viewer almost always wants to know about their personality, what kind of person they are. With women it tends to end at “sexy!”.
Good point; that’s a factor I didn’t even consider.
Well stated,
As good as the BBS is, nothing is ‘perfect’ or ideal.
The site still exists within and is affected by the real world around us.
Thank you. I sincerely appreciate the insight.
Well look here, a man who listens. Now that’s hot! 
It really is though.
Also:
Well, I didn’t say it ended at sexy. My spouse has not always had the intent of appearing physically attractive when I have responded that it she is physically attractive to me. Best example is when she may come back from the gym and she most often feels quite unattractive being sweaty and gross (her description) yet I will respond that she looks sexy to me.
By the definition of the word objectification I know that it is just that; however, my thoughts do not end at “sexy”.
In the case I used above I have often been reprimanded by others “She didn’t make herself look sexy for you…it was for herself…you’re objectifying her!” I like Gunn’s comments in that article as well, and while I can agree that generally speaking men tend to stop at “How does she look?” and women will ask “what is he like?” that is not all people of said gender. I certainly know woman who care about washboard abs and nothing past that attribute. And I am personally a man who wants to know what she is like. Which is where my question lies…is the simplest answer “It depends?”
This is a critical element in any discussion of objectification. I’m thinking here of a woman who chooses to dress provocatively. Yes, she is choosing to do so, and yes, she has the right to do so without being labeled a slut. But agency doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Why is she choosing to do so? We’d like to think that our choices, our very wills, aren’t informed by cultural forces, but they inevitably are, which leads me to another of your points:
If we accept that agency is both individually and culturally moderated, then yes, a person can objectify themselves, without even realizing it.
Literally just happened on another thread.
The key’s right there in the definition, isn’t it? “Dress provocatively”. That assumes someone else who will be provoked to a reaction. Then we consider what reaction is being provoked. If I go out to the store in sweats and a “Raging Feminist Bitch” sweater, I may indeed be dressed provocatively, but it’s a different provocation than if I go to the grocery store in a bikini and lucite heels.
You are exactly right. I had a particular definition of “provocative” in mind (more along the bikini and Lucite heels vein), but provocative can mean many things. I’ll use a more concrete example: Breast implants. Why is she choosing to enlarge this area of her body? What factors, known and unknown, affect this choice? Again, if we accept that agency does not operate at the purely individual level, it’s possible that said woman is objectifying herself without consciously realizing it.
Seeing someone as physically attractive is not objectification, as I would define it. Reducing someone to their physical attractiveness is objectification.
To use your example: if someone else, just as attractive as your spouse, were standing there, wearing something sexy, with the intent to arouse you etc., would you react the same way?
I don’t want to answer for you, but my guess is that your answer would be: “Of course not. My spouse and I have an emotional connection, and have taken vows to remain faithful to each other, have spent years together and are comfortable with each other,” etc., etc… That is: attractiveness is not the only (and probably not even the primary) factor influencing your decision; you’re seeing your spouse as a specific individual who you happen to find physically attractive instead of just as a random attractive person.
Whereas the problem that a lot of women are having is that they are having their entire value reduced to how attractive they are. The problem isn’t when you say, about a stranger, “She’s gorgeous,” but rather when you say: “I’d fuck her.”
The former is (or, at least can be) an aesthetic observation. “Why, what marvellous cheekbones she has.” The message I’m getting about objectification is not: “Oh, you mustn’t say how beautiful Beyoncé is. It’s a verboten topic.”
On the other hand, saying “I’d fuck her” does two things. First, it eliminates any possibility of any other kind of relationship beyond the sexual that you might have: platonic, professional, or otherwise. It objectifies her in that her only purpose, in your eyes, is to bring you sexual pleasure. It then again reduces that sexual relationship to her physical attractiveness. So, with three words, you’ve essentially taken a person, their skills and talents, their desires and dreams, their hopes and fears… and reduced them down to how they are useful for your own pleasure, based entirely on their appearance. In other words, an object.
How a person looks is always going to be part of how you judge that person; it’s sad, but true. It’s probably always going to be part of how relationships are formed: people are attracted to attractive people, and that initial attraction is going to be a spark on which a relationship is formed. As long as both parties go in with an attitude of “I want to learn more about this attractive person and see if we’re compatible,” rather than “Yeah, this person is well-endowed with ‘personality,’ if you know what I mean,” you’re acknowledging that the person exists as a person rather than just as a sexual object, and it’s not objectification.
As always, I speak only for myself; ladies, please let me know if I’m entirely missing the point.
I’m using a particular social media app to look for local friends. Since I am only looking for friends, I have listed on my profile that I am uninterested in comments about my appearance.
You would not believe the mental gymnastics men who contact me go through in order to justify making those comments anyway. “That’s just how I talk.” “Well did you want me to say you’re ugly?” “I’m only saying it cause it’s true”. Because despite having 6 or 7 hobbies and interests listed on my profile, they literally cannot think of anything else to say to a woman they find attractive.
In fact, sometimes they’ll do it as the default without even looking at my picture. Just last night I got a guy who wouldn’t stop going on about my “beautiful smile.” I’m not smiling in the photo. Not even a little. In fact, my natural expression is best described as serious RBF so one might even say I’m frowning in it. I think it’s a good picture of me, obviously, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be called smiling.
I’m not even enough of a person to these particular guys for them to even really look at me. I’m just a possible sex toy on legs. I might not even need legs, frankly. They probably wouldn’t notice.
This is well-reasoned and accurate, but objectification isn’t just about sex.
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification):
"According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if one or more of the following properties are applied to them:
Instrumentality – treating the person as a tool for another’s purposes
Denial of autonomy – treating the person as lacking in autonomy or self-determination
Inertness – treating the person as lacking in agency or activity
Fungibility – treating the person as interchangeable with (other) objects
Violability – treating the person as lacking in boundary integrity and violable, “as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into.”
Ownership – treating the person as though they can be owned, bought, or sold
Denial of subjectivity – treating the person as though there is no need for concern for their experiences or feelings
Nussbaum has argued that the topic of objectification is not only important to sexuality, which has been discussed at length, but to the Marxist view on capitalism and slavery."
Let’s take this picture:
This image is not inherently sexual, yet it certainly meets Nussbaum’s definition of objectification. I guess what I’m saying is that while we most often talk about objectification in sexual terms, it is a much broader topic.
